• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unemployment

pinqy said:
Is that a record? No. You said it was. That is untrue. And you knew it was not a record.
Click to expand...

It's a record. It's a 38 year high.

Are you going to argue substance, or semantics?
 
apdst said:
It's a record. It's a 38 year high.

Are you going to argue substance, or semantics?
Click to expand...

Both. A 38 year low means it's the lowest in the last 38 years, not the lowest ever. The lowest ever would be a record. Do you need a visual? Tell me which year had the record low:
fredgraph.png


So I have established that you don't understand anything about labor force participation and that you don't care about being factual.
 
Conservative said:
If you look at the labor participation rate over the maximum period of time you will find that the labor participation rate under Obama was indeed at historic lows with the worst back in the late 70's but with modern Presidents Obama has the worst record
Click to expand...

No...the late seventies was a record high at the time. The rate trended up until 2000, and as predicted, has trended down. The re cession did accelerate that some, but it was going down anyway.

fredgraph.png
 
pinqy said:
You stated "The rate used by the obama administration was misleading at best."
Why don't you explain why you think the rate used by the Obama administration was misleading, and why you specified the Obama administration. The only reason I can think to do that is that you think either that the rate used by administrations before Obama was different or that the rate used under Trump will be different. Please clarify.
Click to expand...



I used the previous administration. I said nothing about the ones before it. If they too did this, they are just as misleading as Obama.


as for my explanation, they remove people who cant find jobs in a certain period of time.


The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment | Gallup
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I used the previous administration. I said nothing about the ones before it. If they too did this, they are just as misleading as Obama.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.


as for my explanation, they remove people who cant find jobs in a certain period of time.


The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment | Gallup
Click to expand...
They do not "remove" anyone who can't find jobs after a certain period of time, and your link doesn't support that claim. Every month, Census surveys a sample of 60,000 households. The people who say they did not work in the previous week, that they could have started work in the previous week, and that they looked for work in the previous 4 weeks (or were on temporary layoff), are classified as unemployed. It doesn't matter how long they've been looking. The mean is 26 weeks.

And since all the technical details and explanations are publicly available and not in anyway hidden, then how can you say they're misleading?
 
pinqy said:
Thanks for the clarification.



They do not "remove" anyone who can't find jobs after a certain period of time, and your link doesn't support that claim. Every month, Census surveys a sample of 60,000 households. The people who say they did not work in the previous week, that they could have started work in the previous week, and that they looked for work in the previous 4 weeks (or were on temporary layoff), are classified as unemployed. It doesn't matter how long they've been looking. The mean is 26 weeks.

And since all the technical details and explanations are publicly available and not in anyway hidden, then how can you say they're misleading?
Click to expand...




It's misleading to use the more rosy set of numbers, and have the media sell it for you as the end all truth.

So when they claim 5.6% unemployment, does that mean only 5.6% of all people who want jobs, don't have one, or are there others that also want jobs, but can't get them that don't fall into this 5.6%.... ?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
It's misleading to use the more rosy set of numbers, and have the media sell it for you as the end all truth.
Click to expand...
More rosy? That would be the U-1 (1.9%), U-2 (2.3%), the not seasonally adjusted U-3 (4.5%) or the insured unemployment rate (1.5%)

So when they claim 5.6% unemployment, does that mean only 5.6% of all people who want jobs, don't have one, or are there others that also want jobs, but can't get them that don't fall into this 5.6%.... ?
Click to expand...
It means that 5.6% of people who are doing something about work are unsuccessful. The surest way to know if someone wants a job is to look at what they're doing about it. If someone hasn't filled out one application, or sent one resume, or asked one person about work in over a year.....do you really feel confident that person actually wants a job?

There are others who say they want a job, but aren't actually doing anything about it. If you don't apply for any jobs, does it matter how many jobs are available? No, it doesn't. If you don't apply for any jobs does it make any difference if you want a job or not? No, it doesn't.
 
pinqy said:
More rosy? That would be the U-1 (1.9%), U-2 (2.3%), the not seasonally adjusted U-3 (4.5%) or the insured unemployment rate (1.5%)


It means that 5.6% of people who are doing something about work are unsuccessful. The surest way to know if someone wants a job is to look at what they're doing about it. If someone hasn't filled out one application, or sent one resume, or asked one person about work in over a year.....do you really feel confident that person actually wants a job?

There are others who say they want a job, but aren't actually doing anything about it. If you don't apply for any jobs, does it matter how many jobs are available? No, it doesn't. If you don't apply for any jobs does it make any difference if you want a job or not? No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...



You sound like a republican, those lazy welfare guys!!!!! MIRITE!?


:lol:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You sound like a republican, those lazy welfare guys!!!!! MIRITE!?


:lol:
Click to expand...
I usually do vote Republican, though I'm registered as Independent. But it's not a moral judgment...it's a practical evaluation. If we want to know how many people could have been working if there were enough jobs, then including people who would not have been working no matter how many jobs were available doesn't make any sense.
 
katzgar said:
Spicer says the BLS puts out several versions of the unemployment rate. What on Earth is he talking about
Click to expand...

Link ??????? And this OP totally confusing .
 
katzgar said:
reread post 17, yes it is what you said. now you are trying to weasle out of it.
Click to expand...

No, he said "The rate used by the obama administration". That could mean "uniquely as opposed to all other administrations," OR it could mean "irrespective of any other administration." I asked for clarification and RHH said it was the latter.
 
pinqy said:
No, he said "The rate used by the obama administration". That could mean "uniquely as opposed to all other administrations," OR it could mean "irrespective of any other administration." I asked for clarification and RHH said it was the latter.
Click to expand...


weasleing
 
katzgar said:
weasleing
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But that's a judgment call, and opinion.

Oh, have you yet stated what the point of this thread was? You asked what Spicer was referring to, and, when told most likely the alternative measures of underutilization, said you already knew about them. So why would you start a thread asking a question you already knew the answer to?
 
pinqy said:
Perhaps. But that's a judgment call, and opinion.

Oh, have you yet stated what the point of this thread was? You asked what Spicer was referring to, and, when told most likely the alternative measures of underutilization, said you already knew about them. So why would you start a thread asking a question you already knew the answer to?
Click to expand...


are you serious? there is only one unemployment number. Spicers comment was idiotic.
 
katzgar said:
are you serious? there is only one unemployment number. Spicers comment was idiotic.
Click to expand...

So, the OP wasn't sincere. Got it. And there is not only one unemployment number. There is the not seasonally adjusted U-3 (4.5%), the seasonally adjusted U-3 (4.7%), the seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate (1.5%), the not seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate (1.8%). Then there are the U-1 (long term unemployment) and U-2 (job losers) seasonally adjusted and unadjusted versions. Gallup puts out their own measure of unemployment as well (5.6%)

BLS also publishes "alternative measures of labor underutilization" which are often referred to unemployment rates.

So there are many things Spicer could have been referring to. Odds are it was the alternative measures.
 
katzgar said:
reread post 17, yes it is what you said. now you are trying to weasle out of it.
Click to expand...



I said no such thing. Are we so devoid of capability of intellectual discourse that you are reduced to such an embarrassing display?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom